ACTIVISION INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in CA----------------------------------------------------------------Activision, Inc. and certain of its current and former officersand directors face several securities class actions filed in theUnited States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations thatthe Company's revenues and assets were overstated during theperiod between February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002. TheConstruction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust forSouthern Nevada filed the first suit on behalf of a class ofpurchasers of Activision stock. The five additional suits havesubsequently been filed by Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton,Stephen Anish, the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, and Joseph A.Romans asserting similar claims. Five of the six actions havebeen transferred to the same court where the first-filedcomplaint was pending.

In addition, on March 12, 2004, a shareholder derivative lawsuitwas filed, purportedly on behalf of Activision, which in largemeasure asserts the identical claims set forth in the federalclass action lawsuit. That complaint was filed in SuperiorCourt for the County of Los Angeles.

ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Court Hears Motion To Appeal Certification----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oralarguments on Allstate Corporation's request for appeal of theclass certification granted to two active nationwide classactions filed against it regarding its specification of after-market (non-original equipment manufacturer) replacement partsin the repair of insured vehicles.

One of these suits alleges that the specification of such partsconstitutes breach of contract and fraud, and this suit mirrorsto a large degree lawsuits filed against other carriers in theindustry. These plaintiffs allege that after-market parts arenot "of like kind and quality" as required by the insurancepolicy, and they are seeking actual and punitive damages.

In the second lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Allstate and threeco-defendants have violated federal antitrust laws by conspiringto manipulate the price of auto physical damage coverages insuch a way that not all savings realized by the use ofaftermarket parts are passed on to the policyholders. Theplaintiffs seek actual and treble damages.

In November 2002, a nationwide class was certified in this case.The defendants filed a petition to appeal the certification.The parties are now awaiting a decision on the appeal.

Plaintiffs define "inherent diminished value" as the differencebetween the market value of the insured automobile before anaccident and the market value after repair. Plaintiffs allegethat they are entitled to the payment of inherent diminishedvalue under the terms of the policy.

To a large degree, these lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filedagainst other carriers in the industry. These lawsuits arepending in various state and federal courts, and they are invarious stages of development. Classes have been certified intwo cases. Both are multi-state class actions.

A trial in one of these multi-state class action cases involvingcollision and comprehensive coverage concluded on April 29,2004, with a jury verdict in favor of the Company. The Companyis awaiting a ruling on plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. Inthe other certified class action lawsuit, which involvesuninsured motorist property damage coverage, the appellate courthas granted the Company's petition for review of the order ofcertification.

The Company has been vigorously defending all of these lawsuitsand, since 1998, has been implementing policy language in morethan 40 states reaffirming that its collision and comprehensivecoverages do not include diminished value claims. The outcomeof these disputes is currently uncertain, the Company stated ina disclosure to the Securities and Exchange.

Pending court approval, the settlement calls for the drugdeveloper's insurer to set aside $2 million in an account tosettle any class members' claims.

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2001 at the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of California by thelaw firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach on behalf ofshareholders who purchased Amylin stock between Feb. 8, 2000,and July 25, 2001 alleged that the drud developer made falsestatements about Symlin and concealed information that wouldhave put it in a negative light. It also alleged the companyfalsely portrayed itself as a growing, successful, well-managed,law-abiding, well-controlled company.

According to Amylin chief executive Ginger Graham, the companydecided to settle to avoid additional legal expense and theongoing distraction of litigation.

This case arose out of the Company's Suredeposit program. Thisprogram allows cash short prospective residents to purchase abond in lieu of paying a security deposit. The bond serves as afund to pay those resident obligations that would otherwise havebeen funded by the security deposit.

Plaintiffs allege that the non-refundable premium paid for thebond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwiserequired to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act. Plaintiffs further allege that certainnonrefundable pet deposits and other nonrefundable chargesrequired by the Company are similarly security deposits thatmust be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-TenantAct.

On January 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for classcertification. The Company subsequently filed a motion forsummary judgment. Both motions are pending before the Court.

AUTOCORP EQUITIES: Judge Grants SEC Motion For Summary Judgment---------------------------------------------------------------The honorable Judge Paul Cassell granted in part the Securitiesand Exchange Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment againstdefendant Robert Cord Beatty (Beatty) in the matter of SEC v.Autocorp Equities, Inc. The Court's order enjoined Beatty fromfuture violations of the antifraud and issuer books and recordsprovisions of the federal securities laws, but the Courtdeclined to enjoin Beatty from violations of the securitiesregistration provisions of the securities laws.

The Commission filed its complaint against Beatty and others onAug. 10, 1998, alleging that Beatty and others engaged in ascheme to inflate the assets of Diamond Entertainment, Inc. byacquiring $5 million in certificates of deposit ostensiblyissued by a Russian bank but actually created at a Kinko's copycenter in Hollywood, Florida. The complaint alleged that inorder to finance the acquisition of the certificates of depositBeatty and others arranged to have Chariot Entertainment, Inc.issue stock, ostensibly in reliance on Regulation S, to aCalifornia corporation; those shares were then sold after fortydays with $1.5 million of the proceeds used to pay for thecertificates of deposit.

The Order against Beatty prohibits Beatty from furtherviolations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 andSection 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and aiding and abetting violationsof Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-2promulgated thereunder.

Consumption of leachable lead from the ceramicware can causesevere health problems; especially infants, young children andpregnant women. High lead exposures can cause a baby to have lowbirth weight or be born prematurely, or can result inmiscarriage or stillbirth. Lead can cause damage to the centralnervous system, resulting in learning disabilities andbehavioral disorders that could last a lifetime. Children withlead poisoning may not look or act sick.

Each package of the Outta Hand Ceramics Porcelain CocktailPlates distributed by Axis Imex, Inc. consists of a round boxcontaining four cocktail plates and has a UPC numbers of 1743398001 or 17433 98003, item numbers: 09-8002A or 09-8003A.

No illnesses relating to this product have been reported todate.

Axis Imex Inc. discovered the problem during a routine FDAproduct sampling of the Outta Hand Ceramics product line.Testing revealed that only the Outta Hand Ceramics PorcelainCocktail Plates contained high levels of leachable lead.

Consumers who have purchased the product should not handle theseCocktail Plates and are urged to return them to the place ofpurchase for a full refund or you may call 1-800-877-5447 foradditional information.

BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Pre-trial Discovery Continues in OK Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Pre-trial discovery is proceeding in the consolidated classaction filed against Burlington Resources, Inc. and its formeraffiliate, El Paso Natural Gas Company in the District Court ofWashita County, State of Oklahoma.

Two suits, styled "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso NaturalGas Company, et al., Case No. CJ-97-68," and "Deane W. Moore, etal. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., et. al., Case No.CJ-97-132.," were initially filed and subsequently consolidatedby the court. Plaintiffs contend that defendants underpaidroyalties from 1982 to the present on natural gas produced fromspecified wells in Oklahoma through the use of below-marketprices, improper deductions and transactions with affiliatedcompanies and in other instances failed to pay or delayed in thepayment of royalties on certain gas sold from these wells. Theplaintiffs seek an accounting and damages for alleged royaltyunderpayments, plus interest from the time such amounts wereallegedly due. Plaintiffs additionally seek the recovery ofpunitive damages.

The plaintiffs have not specified in their pleadings the amountof damages they seek from the Company. However, through pre-trial discovery, plaintiffs have provided defendants withalternative theories of recovery claiming monetary damages of upto $263.6 million in principal, plus interest, punitive damagesand attorney's fees.

The Company and El Paso Natural Gas Company have assertedcontractual claims for indemnity against each other. The courthas certified the plaintiff classes of royalty and overridingroyalty interest owners. It is anticipated that the trial ofthis matter will be scheduled during the fourth quarter of 2004or in 2005.

The suit was filed in connection with a proxy seeking theliquidation of the Partnership, alleging certain deficiencies inthe Definitive Proxy Statement.

After various motions, cross motions, and appeals, the appealscourt granted the Partnership's motion to dismiss, and the casehas been closed. The Partnership's Partnership Agreementcontains provisions pursuant to which the General Partners mayseek indemnification for their costs, including the requirementthat they obtain an opinion of independent counsel that thematter is subject to indemnification.

CKE RESTAURANTS: Subsidiary Settles CA Wage Lawsuits, To Pay $9M----------------------------------------------------------------CKE Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE: CKR) subsidiary, Carl KarcherEnterprises, Inc., the owner, operator and franchiser of Carl'sJr. restaurants ("CKE"), reached a preliminary agreement tosettle three purported class action lawsuits. As previouslydiscussed in the Company's Form 10-K's, beginning with the Form10-K for fiscal year ended January 28, 2002, and most recentlyin the Form 10-K for fiscal year ended January 27, 2004, theactions relate to a disputed claim for overtime compensation forcertain of CKE's former restaurant managers and former andcurrent general managers in the State of California.

The lawsuits alleged that CKE improperly classified suchemployees as exempt under California's wage and hour laws. Therecent settlement, which addresses claims dating back to 1997and is still subject to court approval, fully resolves allclaims brought by the plaintiffs in these California lawsuits.Many other restaurant industry companies doing business inCalifornia have similarly settled such claims in recent yearsrather than risk the exposure and expense of continuedlitigation. Under the terms of the preliminary agreement, CKEwill make a cash settlement payment of up to $9 million to coverclaims by eligible class members, plaintiff attorneys' fees andcosts, payments to the named plaintiffs, and costs of a third-party administrator. While the matter is still subject to courtapproval, the Company is estimating that the settlement willlead to a charge of $7 million, or approximately 10 cents perdiluted share, in the second quarter of fiscal 2005, to increaseits reserve for this matter up to the estimated settlementamount.

Commenting on the settlement, Robert A. Wilson, CKE's SeniorVice President and General Counsel, stated, "While the Companydenies all liability in these cases, it has agreed to thesettlement in order to resolve all of the Plaintiffs' claimswithout engaging in expensive, distracting and protractedlitigation. CKE is one of numerous companies that have facedthis type of class action lawsuit in California in recent years.Given the unique aspects of California wage and hour laws, whichdiffer significantly from federal law and the law in otherstates, we determined that it was in the Company's best interestto put this charge behind us and move on."

As of the end of the first quarter on May 17, 2004, CKERestaurants, Inc., through its subsidiaries, had a total of3,222 franchised or company-owned restaurants in 44 states andin 14 countries, including 1,016 Carl's Jr.(R) restaurants,2,081 Hardee's(R) restaurants and 106 La Salsa Fresh MexicanGrill(R) restaurants.

CORE LABORATORIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------Core Laboratories NV asked the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidatedamended class action filed against it and certain of itsofficers.

The suit generally alleges, among other things, that thedefendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statementsabout the Company's financial results for 2001 and 2002 and byemploying inadequate internal controls. The amended complaintseeks unspecified monetary damages.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, alldiscovery in the case is stayed until the defendants' motion todismiss is resolved. Defendants filed their motion to dismisson May 21, 2004; plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 20,2004; and defendants are expected to file their reply in August2004.

The seams in the toy can tear open and expose small plasticpellets, posing a choking or aspiration hazard to young childrenwho mouth the pellets. Determined Productions has received onereport of seam breakage on the toy, resulting in a child chokingon the plastic pellets. The child was taken to the hospital andreleased without any injury after a procedure to look foraspirated beads.

The recalled toy is an 11 ź inch purple stuffed frog with agreen chin, belly, hands and feet. The stuffed frog has the word"BRAVE" sewn in purple letters onto the underside of its rightfoot.

Manufactured in China, the toys were exclusively sold at Kohl'sDepartment Stores throughout July 2004 for about $5.

Consumers are advised to stop using the toy immediately andcontact Determined Productions or stop at a local Kohl'sDepartment Stores to receive a refund or store credit.

The Court has ordered that Plaintiffs must make and presenttheir claims to the Receiver on or before November 15, 2004 orbe forever barred from participation in the distribution of theassets of the Global Express Receivership Estate.

HALLIBURTON CO.: TX Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court in Texas granted preliminaryapproval to the settlement of the consolidated securities classaction filed against Halliburton Co., and certain of its presentand former officers and directors.

On June 3, 2002, a class action was filed against the Company infederal court on behalf of purchasers of the Company's commonstock alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Afterthat date, approximately twenty similar class actions were filedagainst us. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendantsArthur Andersen, LLP, the Company's independent accountants forthe period covered by the lawsuits, and several of its presentor former officers and directors.

The lawsuits alleged that the Company violated federalsecurities laws during the period from approximately May 1998until approximately May 22, 2002, in failing to disclose achange in the manner in which the Company accounted for revenueassociated with unapproved claims on long-term engineering andconstruction contracts, and that the Company overstated revenueby accruing the unapproved claims in amounts allegedly in excessof those that were probable of recovery and could be reliablyestimated (the "contract claims").

On October 11, 2002, a shareholder derivative action arising outof the same facts and circumstances was filed in the DistrictCourt of Harris County, Texas against a number of the Company'spresent and former officers and directors. That action wassubsequently dismissed upon the Company's motion.

On March 12, 2003, another shareholder derivative action arisingout of the same events and circumstances was filed in federalcourt against some of the Company's present and former officersand directors. The class action cases were later consolidatedand the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled"Richard Moore v. Halliburton," was filed and served upon theCompany on April 11, 2003.

In early May 2003, the Company announced that it had enteredinto a written memorandum of understanding setting forth theterms upon which both the consolidated cases and the federalcourt derivative action would be settled, and in June 2003, thelead plaintiffs' lawyer in the "Moore action" filed a motion forleave to file a second amended consolidated complaint. Thecourt granted that motion on January 28, 2004.

In addition to restating the contract claims, the second amendedconsolidated complaint includes nondisclosure claims arising outof the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. byHalliburton that were included in the settlement discussionsleading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding andare among the claims to be resolved by the terms of the proposedsettlement of the consolidated class actions.

The memorandum of understanding called for Halliburton to pay $6million, which is to be funded by insurance proceeds. After theMay 2003 announcement regarding the memorandum of understanding,one of the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class actionsannounced that it was dissatisfied with the lead plaintiffs'counsel's handling of settlement negotiations and what thedissident plaintiff regarded as inadequate communications by thelead plaintiffs' counsel. The dissident lead plaintiff furtherasserted that it believes the lead plaintiffs' counsel failed inconnection with the settlement negotiations to take into accountthe alleged value of certain Dresser claims and that the $46million proposed settlement figure is therefore inadequate. Itis unclear whether this dispute within the ranks of the leadplaintiffs will have any impact upon the process of approval ofthe settlement and whether the dissident plaintiff will objectto the settlement at the time of the fairness hearing or opt outof the class action for settlement purposes. The process bywhich the parties will seek approval of the settlement isongoing.

The attorneys representing the dissident plaintiff filed yetanother class action case in August 2003, raising allegationssimilar to those raised in the second amended consolidatedcomplaint regarding the contract and Dresser claims. TheCompany believes that the allegations in that action, styled"Kimble v. Halliburton Company, et al.," are without merit andintends to vigorously defend against them. The company alsobelieves that those new allegations fall within the scope of thememorandum of understanding and that the settlement, if approvedand consummated, will dispose of those claims in their entiretywith respect to all members of the class who do not validly andtimely elect not to participate in the settlement, the Companysaid in a regulatory filing. That action was recentlyconsolidated within the "Richard Moore v. Halliburton," case.

On June 7, 2004, the court entered an order preliminarilyapproving the settlement and scheduling the final hearing todetermine fairness of the proposed settlement for August 26,2004 and directing that notice be sent to class members.

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Over 70 Mutual Fund Market-Timing Suits---------------------------------------------------------------Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) and Putnam Investmentsface complaints in over 70 civil actions based on allegations of"market-timing" activities. These actions have been filed incourts in New York, Massachusetts, California, Illinois,Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Kansas, and North Carolina.Most of the actions have been transferred, along with othersagainst other mutual fund complexes, to the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings.

In most of the federal cases, either by agreement of the partiesor order of the court, the Company and Putnam are not requiredto respond to the complaints until after plaintiffs have filedamended complaints in the consolidated actions.

Purported securities class actions (the "MMC Class ActionComplaints") have been filed in United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York on behalf of a class ofpurchasers of MMC stock during the period from January 2000 toNovember 2003. The MMC Class Action Complaints allege, amongother things, that MMC failed to disclose certain market-timingactivities at Putnam which, when disclosed, resulted in a dropin the market price of MMC's shares. The MMC Complaints alsoname as defendants certain current or former officers anddirectors of MMC. The MMC Complaints assert claims underSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Purported shareholder derivative actions have been filed againstmembers of MMC's Board of Directors, and MMC as a nominaldefendant in courts in state and federal courts in New YorkCity. In these actions, the plaintiffs purport to state commonlaw claims based on, among other things, the Board's allegedfailure to prevent the alleged market timing from occurring.

MMC and/or Putnam have been named in over fifty additionalactions brought by investors in Putnam funds claiming damages tothemselves or the Putnam funds as a result of various market-timing activities. These actions have been brought eitherindividually (the "Individual Complaints"), derivatively (the"Putnam Derivative Complaints"), or on behalf of a putativeclass (the "Putnam Class Action Complaints"). The IndividualComplaints, the Putnam Class Action Complaints (which also nameas defendants certain Putnam funds and certain Putnam employees)and the Putnam Derivative Action Complaints (which also name asdefendants certain Putnam officers and employees and certaintrustees of the Putnam funds), allege violations of the federalsecurities and investment advisory laws and state law. At thistime, several of these cases are pending in various statecourts. Putnam has also been named as a defendant in one suitin its capacity as a sub-advisor to a non-Putnam fund.

MMC, Putnam, and various of their officers, directors andemployees have been named as defendants in three purported classactions asserting claims under the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act (ERISA). The ERISA Actions, which have beenbrought by participants in MMC's Stock Investment Plan andPutnam's Profit Sharing Retirement Plan (collectively, the"Plans"), allege, among other things, that, in view of themarket-timing trading activity that was allegedly allowed tooccur at Putnam, the defendants knew or should have known thatthe investment of the Plans' funds in MMC's stock and Putnam'smutual fund shares was imprudent and that the defendantsbreached their fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants inmaking these investments. The three ERISA Actions were filed infederal court for the Southern District of New York.

MEDIBO N.V.: Recalls MINERVA Patient Lifts Due To Injury Hazard--------------------------------------------------------------- Medibo N.V. is voluntarily conducting a Class I recall for 64units of its MINERVA Patient Lifts (model numbers ML20 andML30), because of mechanical problems that could result inserious patient injury. The FDA defines a Class I recall as asituation in which there is reasonable probability that the useof the product will cause serious adverse health consequences ordeath.

Medibo N.V. is aware of reports of the hanger bar falling off asimilar product called the MINSTREL Lift, which caused thepatient to fall and be injured. One of these incidents resultedin death. Since the MINERVA Patient Lift is similar to theMINSTREL lift in design and construction, Medibo N.V. deem itnecessary to carry out the same field correction/recallprocedure as for the Minstrel Lift.

This recall involves 64 MINERVA Patient Lifts that couldpossibly result in hanger bar detachment due to pin migration orpin breakage in the hanger bar assembly. No other Medibo N.V.devices are involved in this action.

All affected customers will be formally notified via certifiedmail of the MINERVA Field Correction/Recall by August 6, 2004.Affected customers will have the option of inspecting theirMINERVA Patient Lift and completing an Inspection Record orremoving their MINERVA Patient Lift from use pending repair froman authorized Service Technician. All affected customers will berequired to complete a Customer Response Form and return it tothe Minerva Recall Department.

Medibo N.V. is voluntarily cooperating with the Food and DrugAdministration to ensure that all affected customers arenotified of this issue. Medibo N.V. formally notified the Foodand Drug Administration on July 23, 2004.

For more details, contact the Minerva Recall Department byPhone: 1-888-402-6448.

MERCK KGaA.: Fees & Reimbursement Hearing Set September 17, 2004----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the District of Columbia inthe matter entitled LIVENGOOD FEEDS, INC., v. MERCK KGaA., etal., and ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., v. CHINOOK GROUP, LTD.,et al., Misc. No. 99-197 (TFH) MDL No. 1285 notifies all personsor entities who directly purchased vitamin products for deliveryin the United States from any of the defendants or their co-conspirators from January 1, 1990 through September 30, 1998and/or directly purchased choline chloride for delivery in theUnited States from any of the defendants or their co-conspirators from January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998that a hearing on Class Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorneys' feesand Reimbursement of expenses has been scheduled.

The hearing will be held on September 17, 2004 at 11:00am,before the Honorable Thomas F. Hogan, United States DistrictChief Judge, in Courtroom No. 8, United States Courthouse,located at 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.20001.

PACIFICORP: UT Consumers Asks PSC To Reconsider Dismissal Ruling----------------------------------------------------------------Consumers who demanded compensation from PacifiCorp owned UtahPower over a late December 2003 power outage are asking the UtahPublic Service Commission to reconsider its recent decisionrejecting their proposed class action petition,, the Salt LakeTribune reports.

In late April of this year, Utah residents Georgia Peterson,Janet Ward, William Van Cleaf and David Hiller filed a proposedclass-action petition asking the PSC to impose penalties of $40million to $60 million on the power company, which waseventually rejected by the commission. According to the PSC thefour failed to present enough evidence for them to concludetheir views and those of other consumers were not adequatelyrepresented by others already participating in the PSC's reviewof the power outage.

In a recently filed motion for reconsideration, Salt Lakeattorney David Irvine argues that no one else involved in theprobe of the power outage appears to be arguing for penaltiesagainst the power company and that that PacifiCorp, which doesbusiness in Utah as Utah Power failed to adequately maintain itsdistribution system. He further stated that; "We are going tocontinue to pursue this matter, even if the PSC again rulesagainst us." He further added that if the commissioners againturn down their motion, they might file a lawsuit.

On May 2004, Utah Power released its report detailing thefactors it believed were behind the widespread December outage,which indicated that it would ask the PSC to declare the stormand resultant outage a "force majeure" or major event beyond itscontrol. Such a ruling by the PSC will absolve the utility frompaying any reimbursement under its customer-guarantee programestablished in 1999.

The suit alleges violations of Rule 10b-5 of the SecuritiesExchange Act, and common law fraud. The suit alleges that theCompany's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commissioncontained material misstatements or omissions of material factswith respect to its activities related to the California energymarket. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetarydamages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the Company's motionto dismiss the suit.

Tips of sewing needles have been found in the stuffing posing apuncture hazard.

The recall involves 13 plush Pokémon characters. They aredescribed below with their photo. All recalled toys have a sewn-in label reading "TOMY." There also is a production code on thetoy's label that begins with a letter and is followed by twonumbers. The following production codes are included in therecall: A04, B04, C04, D04, E03, E04, F03, F04, G03, G04, H03,I03, J03, K03, and L03. Any production code containing an "S" isnot part of this recall.

Manufactured in Chain, the toys were sold at the Pokémon CenterNY, 10 Rockefeller Plaza, New York City and on the firm's Website at www.pokemoncenter.com nationwide from January 2004through August 2004 for between $2 and $11. A limited numberwere given away as a promotional item.

Parents should take these toys away from children immediatelyand contact TOMY Company for information on receiving a refundor free replacement toy.

For more details, contact the TOMY Company by Phone:(800) 691-8055 between 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday throughFriday.

In their suit, Rene and Irma Hernandez of Kenosha and LorenaGueny of Milwaukee, contend that when they took out mortgageswith the Greenfield-based bank in spring of 2003, they believedthe bank would pay interest on their escrow funds - the moneyset aside with a bank for homeowner expenses such as taxes orinsurance. However, PyraMax in a December 2003 letter revealedthat it had unilaterally stopped paying interest on escrowaccounts seven months earlier.

The lawsuit, filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court by TimothyM. Whiting of a Chicago law firm, accuses PyraMax of breach ofcontract and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks therestoration and reimbursement of interest, the awarding ofpunitive damages.

However, PyraMax chief executive Oliver R. DeGroot referred toletters written by a lawyer for the company to the Hernandezesand Gueny, which asserted that both the contract language andPyraMax's relatively new status as a federally chartered bankentitled it not to pay interest on escrow accounts.

QUADRAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia granted final approval for the settlement of thesecurities class actions and the shareholder derivative suitfiled against QuadraMed Corporation and certain of its officersand directors.

In October 2002, a series of securities law class actioncomplaints was filed in the United States District Court,Northern District of California, by certain of the Company'sshareholders. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, amongother things, violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934due to issuing a series of allegedly false and misleadingstatements concerning the Company's business and financialcondition between May 11, 2000 and August 11, 2002.

Also in October 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filedon the Company's behalf in Marin County Superior Court ofCalifornia against QuadraMed as a nominal defendant and certainof its current and former officers and directors. Thederivative action plaintiffs allege that certain of theCompany's current and former officers and directors breachedtheir fiduciary duties to QuadraMed based on assertions similarto those in the federal securities class action litigation.Both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On May 3, 2004, the final settlement agreement related to thesecurities class action litigation was filed with the court. OnApril 21, 2004, the Court approved the final settlement of theshareholder derivative case.

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: VA Court Okays Right-of-Way Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court in Richmond, Virginia approvedthe settlement of the class action filed against VirginiaElectric & Power Company by Wiley Fisher, Jr. and John Fisher.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Company and Dominion Telecomstrung fiber-optic cable across their land, along the Company'selectric transmission corridor, without paying compensation. TheComplaint sought damages for trespass and "unjust enrichment,"as well as punitive damages from the defendants. The namedplaintiffs "represent a class . consisting of all owners of landin North Carolina and Virginia, other than public streets orhighways, that underlies the Company's electric transmissionlines and on or in which fiber optic cable has been installed."

The federal district court granted a motion to add additionalplaintiffs, Harmon T. Tomlinson, Jr. and Linda D. Tomlinson. InAugust 2003, the federal district court issued an order grantingthe plaintiff's motion for class certification. The U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the Company's petitionsfor interlocutory appeal on the class certification issue.

In April 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreementthat was subsequently approved by the court in July 2004. Underthe terms of the settlement, a fund of $20 million has beenestablished by the Company to pay claims of current and formerlandowners as well as fees of lawyers for the class. Costs ofnotice to the class and administration of claims will be borneseparately by the Company.

WAL-MART: Attorneys Appeal Class Status For NC Overtime Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Attorneys representing three former Wal-Mart workers who claimthat the retailing giant has created a workplace culture thatfosters off-the-clock work are persistently pushing for classaction status to include thousands of current and former NorthCarolina employees in the case, the News & Observer reports.

Denied class-action status by Forsyth County Superior CourtJudge W. Douglas Albright, the attorneys took the case, Harrisonv. Wal-Mart to the N.C. Court of Appeals. In their filing, theyargued the lower court's assessment that a class-action casewould, as put the judge put it, "degenerate into a massive,interminable and unmanageable morass involving tens of thousandsof witnesses."

The judge also wrote in his ruling that Wal-Mart employees since2001 have not been required to officially record their breaks,by clocking in and out. The judge further wrote that the absenceof the detailed time cards would require, "this Court and thejury to sit through thousands of examinations and mini-trials tomake those determinations."

However, the lawyer for the workers argued that they wanted torely on statistical analysis of Wal-Mart records, expertopinions and a telephone survey of Wal-Mart employees to provetheir case an approach, which the judge said would rely too muchon hearsay.

According to legal experts, if the appellate court favors theplaintiffs, the case could encompass up to 181,000 NorthCarolinians who have had hourly paid jobs at Wal-Mart since1997.

New Securities Fraud Cases

BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Lowey Dannenberg Lodges Stock Suit in NY---------------------------------------------------------------The law offices of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C.initiated filed a class action lawsuit in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York againstBennett Environmental, Inc. ("Bennett" or the "Company") (AMEX:BEL), and certain of the Company's former and present officersand directors for violations of the federal securities laws. Thelawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stockof Bennett during the period from June 2, 2003 through July 21,2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bennett, John A. Bennett, Chairman of theBoard and former Chief Executive Officer, Allan Bulckaert,President and current Chief Executive Officer, and certain otherformer and present Company executives, with violations of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934 for making allegedly falseand misleading statements which caused Bennett common stock totrade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period.Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants repeatedlytouted that Bennett had been awarded a "record" contract - the"largest in the Company's history" - to treat "300,000 tons" ofcontaminated soil from a large hazardous waste site in NewJersey - that was expected to generate more than $200 million(CDN) in revenues for the Company (the "New Jersey Contract").

On July 22, 2004, Bennett revealed that:

(1) the Company would not be receiving the 300,000 tons of soil or $200 million (CDN) in revenues for soil treatment under the New Jersey Contract;

(2) shortly after the New Jersey Contract was awarded to Bennett in May 2003, Bennett's consent to perform under the contract had been withdrawn by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") which supervises the contractors responsible for the remediation process at the New Jersey site;

(3) the Corps agreed to ship only up to 10,000 tons of soil from the clean-up site to Bennett;

(4) only "about 7,000 tons" of contaminated soil had been treated by Bennett under the New Jersey Contract and "future deliveries under it are highly unlikely to resume";

(5) on June 3, 2004, Bennett had entered into a new subcontract for soil treatment on economic terms "far less" favorable than those in the New Jersey Contract and with a guaranteed minimum of only 1,000 tons of soil; and

(6) operations at the Company's highly publicized new treatment facility in Belledune, New Brunswick would not start until it was clear that sufficient volumes of soil shipments would be received by Bennett.

BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Murray, Frank, & Sailer LLP initiated a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers ofBennett Environmental Inc. ("Bennett" or the "Company")(AMEX:BEL) common stock during the period from June 2, 2003through July 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Bennett and certain of its seniorofficers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder. The alleged violations stem from the disseminationof false and misleading statements, which had the effect -- during the Class Period -- of artificially inflating the priceof Bennett's shares.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that on June 2, 2003,the Company announced that it had received the largest contractin the Company's history. The press release stated that Bennetthad been awarded a contract to treat approximately 300,000 tonsof soil at the Federal Creosote Superfund Site in New Jersey.The company reported that it valued the contract, slated to becompleted in 2005, at $200 million (Canadian). John Bennett,Bennett's Chairman and CEO, said, "This (contract), togetherwith previously announced contracts, ensures that we will have avery successful year in 2003 and beyond in terms of meeting ourfinancial and operation goals." In the seven months after theannouncement, Bennett shares doubled in value.

On July 22, 2004, Bennett announced that the contractperformance by Army Corps of Engineering, the entity who awardedBennett the contract, had been in question since August of 2003,despite the eleven months of releases and announcements by thecompany to the contrary. An unsuccessful bidder on the soiltreatment contract had disputed the award, and, in theaftermath, the Company was clueless about the contract's statusand the Army's future performance. In fact, the Company had toresort to Freedom of Information Act inquiries, among otherthings, to ascertain the contract's status. On this news, thestock price fell from $10.50 to $7.80, a 25% one-day drop and64% off its Class Period high of $21.89.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for theCentral District of California, Southern Division, againstdefendant Biolase Technology, Inc. and one or more of itsofficers and/or directors. The action charges that defendantsviolated federal securities laws by issuing a series ofmaterially false and misleading statements to the marketthroughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect ofartificially inflating the market price of the Company'ssecurities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the law offices of Charles J. Piven,P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East PrattStreet, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:410/986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com

BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & RobbinsLLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California,Southern Division, on behalf of purchasers of BiolaseTechnology, Inc. ("Biolase") (NASDAQ:BLTI) publicly tradedsecurities during the period between October 29, 2003 and July16, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Biolase and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and Securities Act of 1933. Biolase is a medical technologycompany that designs, manufacturers and markets proprietarydental laser systems that allow dentists, oral surgeons andother specialists to perform a broad range of common dentalprocedures, including cosmetic applications.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantscaused Biolase's shares to trade at artificially inflated levelsthrough the issuance of false and misleading financialstatements. The Company recognized revenue in advance of earningit and failed to record adequate reserves for returns, causingthe Company's financial results to be inflated. This inflationwas important to the Company as it was able to complete asecondary stock offering of 2.8 million shares in February 2004at $18.80 per share.

On July 16, 2004, after the markets closed, Biolase reportedpreliminary results for the second quarter of 2004. On thisnews, the Company's stock declined to $8.78 on volume of 4.8million shares. Within two weeks the Company's CFO resigned.According to the complaint, defendants knew that Biolase was notperforming nearly as well as represented. The true facts, whichdefendants knew but concealed from the investing public duringthe Class Period, were as follows:

(1) Waterlase was not gaining market share and demand for the product was not increasing at the rates represented by defendants;

(2) Biolase had introduced a lower priced entry level laser which was cannibalizing sales such that Biolase's reported earnings were false and misleading;

(3) defendants were concealing this decreasing demand by granting extended payment terms and price breaks; and

CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges MN Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securitiesclass action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of CeridianCorp. (NYSE:CEN) between April 17, 2003 and July 19, 2004,inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for theDistrict of Minnesota against defendant Ceridian Corp. and oneor more of its officers and/or directors. The action chargesthat defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing aseries of materially false and misleading statements to themarket throughout the Class Period, which statements had theeffect of artificially inflating the market price of theCompany's securities. No class has yet been certified in theabove action.

For more details, contact the law offices of Charles J. Piven,P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East PrattStreet, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:410/986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com

CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges MN Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & RobbinsLLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf ofpurchasers of Ceridian Corp. ("Ceridian") (NYSE:CEN) publiclytraded securities during the period between April 17, 2003 andJuly 19, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Ceridian and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. Ceridian offers a broad range of managed human resourcesolutions designed to help companies maximize the value of theirpeople by more effectively managing their work forces and theinformation that is integral to human resource processes.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantscaused Ceridian's shares to trade at artificially inflatedlevels through the issuance of false and misleading financialstatements, which included the improper capitalization as assetsof certain costs which should have been expensed. Defendantstook advantage of the inflated share price by selling 216,298shares of their individual Ceridian holdings for proceeds of$3.9 million. On February 18, 2004, the Company announced itwould restate its 2000-2003 financials due to a revenuerecognition change within its Stored Value System business unit.The Company's stock declined on this news. However, the stocksoon recovered due to defendants' assurances that the change waslimited in scope and would not materially impact futuresresults.

On July 19, 2004, the Company announced the postponement of itsQ2 04 earnings release and investor call. According to thecomplaint, the defendants were struggling to conceal that theCompany's capitalization and expensing of certain costs in itsU.S. Human Resource Solutions ("HR Solutions") business werefalse. This false accounting will adversely impact the Company'sQ2 04 results as well as previously reported periods andguidance. This was the second time in as many quarters that anaccounting issue had taken center stage for the Company. On thisnews, Ceridian's stock price dropped to $18.20 per share, onvolume of 6.8 million shares.

The complaint alleges that defendants' revelations indicate thatthe Company's comprehensive HR Solutions deals, which oftenrequire upfront customization work during the implementationprocess, were falsely accounted for. The Company had beencapitalizing these upfront costs rather than expensing themimmediately. As a result, the prior results need to be restated.The Company capitalized approximately $30 million of internallydeveloped software expenses in its HR Solutions division in2003. If expensed, this would reduce 2003 EPS by some $0.13.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida against defendant Cross Country andcertain of the Company's executive officers. The action chargesthat defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing aseries of materially false and misleading statements to themarket throughout the Class Period, which statements had theeffect of artificially inflating the market price of theCompany's securities. No class has yet been certified in theabove action.

For more details, contact the law offices of Charles J. Piven,P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East PrattStreet, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com

CROSS COUNTRY: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida on behalf of a class (the "Class")consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquiredsecurities of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. ("Cross Country" orthe "Company") (Nasdaq:CCRN) between October 25, 2001 and August6, 2002, inclusive (the "Class Period").

(2) the nursing shortage, which the Company previously had touted as creating a favorable business environment, was no longer creating the demand for temporary nurses that Cross Country represented to the investing public; and

(3) Cross Country had problems with staffing orders being received from hospitals and then abruptly canceled -- a problem which also hurt the Company's stock and spread to the rest of the industry, but which defendants never disclosed to the investing public.

On August 7, 2002, following news of the decline in demand and adrop in the number of the Company's full-time nurses, CrossCountry shares fell below the Company's IPO price for the firsttime in its history, closing 45% below the previous day's close.

CROSS COUNTRY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & RobbinsLLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action on behalf of aninstitutional investor in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers ofCross Country Healthcare, Inc. ("Cross Country") (NASDAQ:CCRN)publicly traded securities during the period between October 25,2001 and August 6, 2002 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Cross Country and certain of its officersand directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. Cross Country provides healthcare staffing services in theUnited States with a client base of approximately 3,000hospitals, pharmaceuticals companies and other healthcareproviders across all 50 states. Cross Country provides travelnurse staffing services and per diem nurse staffing services.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendantsknew but concealed from the investing public that:

(1) the demand for the Company's short-term, temporary nursing contracts, Cross Country's core business was not as great as represented by defendants, and

(2) the Company was experiencing problems with staffing orders for temporary nurses being received and then abruptly cancelled by hospitals, a problem which, if disclosed to the market, would have a materially negative impact on the Company's stock price.

On the news of the decline in demand and drop in the number ofits full-time nurses, Cross Country shares fell to a then all-time low of $13.06 in intra-day trading, a decline of more than50% from the previous day's closing price of $26.19. CrossCountry's share price closed below the IPO price for the firsttime in its history, and it did so definitively at $14.34, or15% below the IPO price and 45% below the previous day's close.

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in MO----------------------------------------------------------------The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securitiesclass action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of ExpressScripts, Inc. (Nasdaq:ESRX) between October 29, 2003 and August3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Missouri against defendant Express Scriptsand one or more of its officers and/or directors. The actioncharges that defendants violated federal securities laws byissuing a series of materially false and misleading statementsto the market throughout the Class Period, which statements hadthe effect of artificially inflating the market price of theCompany's securities. No class has yet been certified in theabove action.

For more details, contact the law offices of Charles J. Piven,P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East PrattStreet, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Brodksy & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO----------------------------------------------------------------The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securitiesclass action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased thecommon stock and other securities of Express Scripts, Inc.("Express Scripts" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ESRX), betweenOctober 29, 2003 and August 3, 2004 inclusive (the "ClassPeriod"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federalsecurities laws by issuing a series of materialmisrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,thereby artificially inflating the price of Express Scriptssecurities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

HARVEST AIRPRIME: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action in the United StatesDistrict Court, Central District of California on behalf ofpurchasers of membership interests in Harvest AirPrime LLC,Harvest Storage Technology Group LLC and Woodcarvers Limited LLC(the "Companies") during the period from November 20, 1998through December 31, 2003, inclusive (the "Period"). TheCompanies were conduits for investments in Chaparral NetworkStorage, Inc. and AirPrime, Inc.

The complaint charges Robert T. Harvey, Timothy Smoot, theCompanies, Sierra Wireless America, Inc. (formerly AirPrime,Inc.), Chaparral Network Storage Inc., as well as certain formerofficers and directors and related companies and affiliates withviolating Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,breach of fiduciary duty, and other state law causes of actionfor allegedly failing to disclose material informationconcerning investments in the Companies, including the fact thatRobert Harvey, the broker for the securities and manager of theCompanies had prior fraud related convictions and was to receiveundisclosed compensation for his role in the offerings. As aresult of this conduct, according to the complaint, investors inthe Companies suffered damages during the Period.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 78u-4(a)(B)(iii), not later than 60days after today, any purchaser of the Companies' securitiesduring the Period may move the court to serve as lead plaintiffin the action.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen LawFirm by Phone: 866-767-3653 or by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

KVH INDUSTRIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in RI----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, P.L.L.C. hasfiled a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf ofpurchasers of KVH Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq:KVHI) ("KVH" or the"Company") securities between January 6, 2004 and July 2, 2004,inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint seeks to pursueremedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against KVHand certain of its officers and directors in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Rhode Island.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,defendants issued materially false and misleading statementsregarding KVH's increasing financial results and the strongdemand for its newly developed TracVision A5 and G8 satellite TVsystems (the "TracVision systems"). As alleged in the complaint,these statements were materially false and misleading becausethey failed to disclose, among other things:

(1) that defendants had "stuffed" the retail channels with overpriced TracVision systems;

(2) that the Company's revenues were not growing by millions of dollars per quarter and the purported growth trends in the Company's revenues could not be sustained; and

(3) that KVH had not realized any material cost reduction in the manufacture of its TracVision systems and would be forced to write-down its inventory of manufactured goods by millions of dollars.

The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclosethese adverse facts in order to complete a public offering ofKVH common stock, raising more than $51.5 million in much neededcapital.

On or about July 6, 2004, before the market opened for trading,KVH stunned the investing public by announcing that it wasslashing the retail price of its TracVision systems by more than34% and taking a multi-million dollar write down of vendorpurchase commitments and on-hand inventories to reflect the truevalue of KVH's TracVision systems sales. In pre-opening markettrading, KVH common stock declined more than 19%, to open at$9.51 per share on July 6, 2004, a 49% decline from the publicoffering price just four months prior.

NETFLIX INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California on behalf of a class (the"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwiseacquired securities of Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix" or the"Company") (Nasdaq:NFLX) between October 1, 2003 and July 15,2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Netflix and certain of the Company'sexecutive officers with violations of federal securities laws.Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and materialmisrepresentations concerning Netflix' operations andperformance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,inflicting damages on investors. Netflix is the largest onlinemovie rental subscription service in the United States. Thecomplaint alleges that defendants deliberately understated theCompany's "churn" rate (the percentage of its subscribers thatcancelled per month) by utilizing a novel definition of churnthat artificially decreased the Company's reported churn rateduring quarters when the Company was adding large numbers of newsubscribers. Additionally, Defendants repeatedly touted theCompany's impressive subscriber growth without any directdisclosure in Netflix' earnings releases or SEC filingsconcerning the large percentage of subscriber cancellationsduring the respective quarters.

On July 15, 2004, after the close of trading, the Company forthe first time disclosed that while the Company had added537,000 new subscribers during the second quarter, in the sameperiod it had suffered 422,000 subscriber cancellations, andthough the Company added 1,343,000 new subscribers during thefirst half of 2004, in the same period it had suffered 737,000subscriber cancellations. In response to this news, Netflixshares plummeted 38% over the next two days.

RED HAT: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC---------------------------------------------------------------The law offices of Hoffman & Edelson, LLC has filed a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theEastern District of North Carolina against Red Hat, Inc. ("RedHat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:RHAT), Matthew Szulik, Kevin B.Thompson and Timothy J. Buckley, on behalf of common stockpurchasers during the period between June 19, 2001 and July 13,2004 (the "Class Period"), inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendantsissued a series of materially false and misleading statements tothe market in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theExchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.More specifically, on July 13, 2004, defendants revealed thatthey would be restating financial results for fiscal years endedFebruary 2004, 2003 and 2002 as well as its unaudited financialstatement for its fiscal first quarter ended May 31, 2004 as aresult of the change in the way they recognized revenue fromsubscription contracts, noting that they would now berecognizing revenue from subscriptions on a daily basis ratherthan on a monthly basis. The Company further announced that theSecurities and Exchange Commission is conducting a review of oneof its annual reports. On this news, Red Hat's stock price fellprecipitiously from a closing price of $20.35 per share on July12, 2004 to an intra-day low of $15.62 per share on July 13,2004.

TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, P.L.L.C.initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf ofpurchasers of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq:TARO)("Taro" or the "Company") securities between February 20, 2003,and July 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaintseeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of1934 against Taro and certain of its officers and directors inthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York.

The complaint alleges that Taro presented itself as apharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and marketsgeneric drugs, and that the Company claimed throughout the ClassPeriod that it had successfully expanded its product line toinclude proprietary drugs and novel drug delivery systems.Unbeknownst to investors, the Company suffered from undisclosedadverse factors that were having a negative impact on Taro'sfinancial performance and condition including but not limited tothe following:

(1) defendants were unable to maintain profitability in Taro's generic drug division or generate free cash flow from the introduction of higher margin proprietary products sufficient to offset the expense of its new product launches;

(2) defendants had failed to properly record the full expense of developing new proprietary drug products, such that it was materially false and misleading for defendants to state that the roll-out of Taro's new proprietary drugs was not and would not adversely affect the Company's near- or long-term profitability;

(3) defendants understated the negative effects of increasing competition on the Company's financial performance; and

(4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Taro was operating according to plan or that Taro could maintain profitability in the near-term.

The truth emerged on July 29, 2004. On that date, the Companyannounced a second-quarter loss of $0.31 per share, far belowthe Company-guided analyst consensus estimate of $0.44 per shareearnings, and that drug sales had dropped to $49.1 million from$74.8 million in the prior second quarter. On this news, Taro'sshare price fell more than $11.50 per share to a new multi-yearlow of $18.68 per share.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in WA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securitiesfraud class action complaint in the United States District Courtfor the Western District of Washington at Seattle againstWashington Mutual, Inc. ("Washington Mutual" or the "Company")(NYSE: WM), Kerry K. Killinger, Thomas W. Casey, Deanna W.Oppenheimer, William W. Longbrake, Craig J. Chapman, James G.Vanasek, and Michelle McCarthy on behalf of purchasers of WMsecurities, during the period between April 15, 2003 and June28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Washington Mutual, Inc., Kerry K.Killinger, Thomas W. Casey, Deanna W. Oppenheimer, William W.Longbrake, Craig J. Chapman, James G. Vanasek, and MichelleMcCarthy with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder. The complaint alleges that throughout the ClassPeriod, Defendants issued false and misleading statementsregarding the Company's ability to grow in the face of anyexpected interest rate increases, as well as the Company'spurported financial hedging strategies.

On June 29, 2004, Washington Mutual announced that expectationsfor a sustained increase in long-term interest rates wouldsignificantly impact the Company's Mortgage Banking businessresulting in 2004 earnings below previous guidance. Higherinterest rates lowered the Company's mortgage productionexpectations at a time when cost reduction plans have not yetfully taken effect. This news shocked the market. Following thepublication of this surprising news, the Company's common sharesfell to $38.47 per share, from a closing price of $41.31 pershare on June 28, 2004.

WIRELESS FACILITIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & RobbinsLLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of California onbehalf of purchasers of Wireless Facilities, Inc. ("WirelessFacilities") (NASDAQ:WFII) common stock during the periodbetween April 26, 2000 and August 4, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Wireless Facilities and certain of itsofficers and directors with violations of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934. Wireless Facilities is an independentprovider of outsourced communications and security systemsengineering and integration services and other technicalservices for the wireless communications industry, the UnitedStates government and enterprise customers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantscaused Wireless Facilities' shares to trade at artificiallyinflated levels through the issuance of false and misleadingfinancial statements. As a result of this inflation, defendantMasood K. Tayebi was able to complete a forward sale of hisholdings which would conceal his actual sales of his shares fromthe public and the Company was able to complete a $45 millionprivate placement and obtain a $100 million credit facility.

On August 4, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcingthat "it intends to restate its financial statements filed onForm 10-K for the years 2000 through 2003 to accrue for certainforeign tax contingencies. The restatement is the result of anextensive analysis by the Company that identified adjustments,which are required to properly state prior period financialstatements." On August 5, 2004, shares in Wireless Facilitiesplunged 28%, or $1.96, to close at $5.02, as one of the mostactive stocks and among the biggest percentage losers of theday.

YUKOS OIL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquiredsecurities of Yukos Oil Company ("Yukos" or the "Company")(PinkSheets:YUKOF) (Pink Sheets:YUKOY) (Russia:YUKO) between February13, 2003 and October 25, 2003, inclusive (the "Class Period").Also included are all those who acquired Yukos shares throughits acquisitions of Sibneft, Geoilbent, and Vostochnaya.

The Complaint charges Yukos and certain of the Company'sexecutive officers with violations of federal securities laws.Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and materialmisrepresentations concerning Yukos' operations and financialperformance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,inflicting damages on investors. Yukos is a leading Russianvertically-integrated oil company. The complaint alleges thatdefendants created a complex network of shell companies to evadetaxes on the production, refining and sale of oil and oilproducts. These shell companies were registered in territorieswith preferential tax treatment in order to receive special taxexemptions and minimize tax liability. Because these shellcompanies were not separate legal entities, Yukos was requiredto recognize the full amount of the receipts associated withthese transactions for its own tax purposes and was not entitledto the preferential tax treatment these shell companies weregranted. Accordingly, Yukos' tax liability was materiallyunderstated and its earnings were materially overstated.

In October 2003, it was revealed that Russian authorities hadarrested Yukos' CEO, on fraud, embezzlement and tax evasioncharges. Authorities also announced that they would pursuecriminal prosecutions against other senior Yukos officials.Ultimately, Yukos will be required to pay approximately $3.3billion for 2000 alone due to its understatement of taxliability. The Tax Ministry intends to audit Yukos for 2001-2003based upon the same charges, and Yukos could ultimately beexpected to pay upwards of $10 billion to the Tax Ministry forthis illegal tax evasion scheme.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.